ÿWPCŒ …UNV %¤ 0(ª4Òæ 0ˆõ 0D} 0JÁ 0T 0^_ 0h½ 0r% 0|— 0† 0™ 1u) U,ž 0dÊ U,. U>Z U6˜ B)Î DC÷ AM:U*‡ B±Îv~ßvÓ] D30 0@c AO£Æò 0D¸ 0Dü D/@ Bo(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„pÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔ3|x!(8(2§ã$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌJanuary€11,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑòòÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔßL€"%!;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóà@ àòòÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àJANUARY€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9404„CR„00154Ì€€Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àDAVIDSON€COUNTY€ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHonorable€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÌÌJAMES€PHILLIP€HUNTER,€€€à à*à à(First€Degree€Murder)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌòòÌÌÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌGeorge€J.€Duzane€€€€€à àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDuzane,€Kooperman€&€Mondelli€€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌOne€Church€Street€€€€€€€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€300€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌNashville,€TN€€37201€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Eugene€J.€HoneaÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMs.€Kymberly€Hattaway€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏAssistant€District€Attorney€Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏNashville,€TN€€37201„1649€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÇÓÓÑ7€iXXdìXXdì7Ñ€à@ àòòò òOPINIONÌà àà àó óóóThe€defendant,€James€Phillip€Hunter,€appeals€from€hisÏconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€imposed€aÏlife€sentence.€€In€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiencyÏof€the€evidence,€the€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€forÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€the€defendant's€motion€for€judgmentÏof€acquittal;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€strike€a€police€officer'sÏtestimony€concerning€shotgun€blast€testÏresults;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏadmitting€into€evidence€photographs€of€theÏvictim€taken€at€the€morgue;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€the€defendant's€motion€in€limineÏconcerning€pictures€of€the€victim'sÏapartment;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏallowing€the€victim's€father€to€sit€atÏcounsel€table;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€whether€the€state€erroneously€failed€toÏdisclose€to€the€defense€all€of€theÏdefendant's€prior€bad€acts;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€whether€the€state€committedÏprosecutorial€misconduct€in€closingÏargument;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(8)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÍfailing€to€charge€the€jury€on€protection€ofÏproperty;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(9)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€instruct€the€jury€on€criminallyÏnegligent€homicide;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(10)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏfailing€to€grant€the€defendant€a€new€trialÏwhen€an€assistant€district€attorney,€afterÏthe€verdict,€stated€that€she€did€notÏbelieve€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€firstÏdegree€murder.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€find€no€reversible€error€and,€therefore,€affirm€theÏjudgment.Ìà àà àOn€January€8,€1993,€Teresa€Smoot€was€celebrating€theÏbirthday€of€her€husband,€Michael€Smoot,€at€their€residence.€€Ms.ÏSmoot's€brother,€Ronald€Fann,€and€the€victim,€Dewey€Slanton,Ïwere€present.€€Michael€Smoot€and€the€victim€were€drinking€beer.€ÏThe€four€watched€television€for€a€time€before€deciding€to€go€toÏthe€Odyssey€Club,€where€Ms.€Smoot€worked€as€a€dancer.€€On€theirÏway,€they€stopped€at€a€liquor€store,€where€Ms.€Smoot's€husbandÏand€brother€bought€a€"little€bottle€of€something."€€The€victimÏhad€also€gone€inside€the€store€but€did€not€purchase€anything.€ÏThe€group€continued€their€celebration€at€the€club€for€a€time,Ïthen€took€the€victim€home€because€he€had€to€work€the€next€day.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€other€three€decided€to€visit€another€club,€theÏBrass€Stables,€but€changed€their€minds€on€the€way€and€droveÏtowards€the€Smoot€home.€€As€they€entered€the€alley€leading€toÏtheir€driveway,€Ms.€Smoot€saw€the€victim,€who€lived€in€theÏneighboring€apartments,€looking€over€his€shoulder€and€motioningÏfor€her€to€stop.€€Ms.€Smoot€yelled,€"Wait€a€minute,"€and€wasÏpulling€into€her€driveway€to€park€the€car€when€she€heard€aÏgunshot.€€She€then€saw€the€defendant,€who€appeared€to€haveÏsomething€like€the€butt€of€a€gun€on€his€"back€side,"€standingÏtoward€the€front€of€her€house.€€As€she€backed€the€car€into€theÏalley,€she€saw€the€victim€clutch€his€stomach€and€chest€and€fallÏto€the€ground.€€Ms.€Smoot€ran€to€the€victim,€placed€a€pillowÏunder€his€head€and€covered€him€with€her€coat€and€a€blanket.€ÏMichael€Smoot€called€911;€Ms.€Smoot€joined€in€the€conversation,Ïtelling€the€dispatcher€that€the€defendant€had€shot€the€victim.€ÏThe€defendant,€who€lived€in€the€same€apartment€complex€as€theÏvictim,€went€to€his€sister's€house€right€after€the€shooting;€heÏreturned€to€his€apartment€a€few€€minutes€later.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Smoot,€who€conceded€that€the€victim€was€a€closeÏfriend,€testified€that€he€was€not€drunk.€€She€stated€that€theÏvictim€had€previously€told€her€that€he€"had€words"€with€theÍdefendant€over€Debra€Ryman,€the€victim's€ex„girlfriend€and€aÏniece€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àMichael€Smoot's€testimony€closely€tracked€that€of€hisÏwife.€€Smoot,€who€claimed€that€he€had€received€death€threatsÏsince€the€shooting,€added€that€the€victim€had€acted€normallyÏduring€the€course€of€the€evening,€although€he€may€have€been€aÏlittle€depressed€about€his€break„up€with€Ms.€Ryman.€€Smoot€sawÏthe€defendant€with€a€gun€in€his€hand€and€heard€a€shot€fired.€ÏWhen€he€saw€that€the€victim€had€been€injured,€he€went€to€aÏneighbor's€house€to€call€911.€€Smoot€went€back€outside€to€stayÏwith€the€victim€when€Ms.€Smoot€came€inside€to€talk€to€theÏdispatcher.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àSusan€Franks,€of€the€Metropolitan€Nashville„DavidsonÏCounty€Police€Department,€was€the€first€officer€to€arrive€at€theÏscene€of€the€shooting.€€The€victim,€wrapped€in€a€blanket,Ïappeared€to€be€unconscious.€€Officer€Franks€learned€that€SmootÏand€Fann€suspected€the€defendant€as€the€assailant.€€When€theÏambulance€arrived,€she€looked€for€evidence€in€the€nearbyÏapartment€complex.€€A€door€to€one€of€the€apartments,€thatÏbelonging€to€the€victim,€was€open.€€The€apartment€was€inÍdisarray€and€there€were€two€gunshot€holes€in€the€living€roomÏwall.€€As€Officer€Franks€knocked€on€the€door€to€the€adjacentÏapartment,€she€saw€that€the€door€to€a€third€apartment€was€open,Ïinvestigated,€and€found€the€defendant€sitting€calmly€inside.€ÏThe€defendant€told€Officer€Franks€that€he€had€been€asleep€whenÏthe€victim€kicked€in€the€door€to€his€apartment€and€hit€him€inÏthe€jaw.€€He€stated€that€he€then€took€a€shotgun€from€underneathÏhis€bed€and€shot€the€victim.€€Officer€Franks€found€no€cuts,Ïbruises,€or€abrasions€on€the€defendant€and€determined€that€theÏdoor€had€been€kicked€from€the€inside€out,€rather€than€theÏoutside€in.€€ÌÌà àà àOther€officers€arrived€shortly€thereafter€and,€upon€Ïreceiving€permission,€searched€the€defendant's€apartment.€€TheÏdefendant€informed€certain€of€the€officers€that€his€weapon€wasÏin€the€bedroom.€€Three€slugs€which€fit€the€defendant's€shotgunÏwere€in€the€floor.ÌÌà àà àLieutenant€Roger€Therber€went€to€the€scene€briefly.€ÏHis€recollection€of€events€was€very€similar€to€that€of€OfficerÏFranks;€he€added€that€the€defendant€admitted€firing€his€gunÏthree€times€that€night.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€J.R.€Malone€was€also€involved€in€theÏinvestigation.€€He€testified€that€there€was€a€heavy€odor€ofÏgunpowder€in€the€victim's€apartment€just€after€the€murder.€€HeÏfound€two€shotgun€blasts€in€the€wall.€€One€shot€appeared€to€haveÏbeen€fired€through€the€front€door€from€the€outside€whereas€theÏsecond€shot€appeared€to€have€been€fired€from€inside€theÏapartment.€€Officer€Malone€testified€that€several€householdÏitems€had€been€destroyed€by€the€gunshots.€€He€saw€no€bloodstainsÏor€shotgun€shells€inside€the€victim's€apartment,€but€did€recoverÏa€shotgun€shell€outside,€somewhere€between€the€apartmentÏoccupied€by€the€victim€and€that€of€the€defendant.€€€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Malone€also€found€several€unfired€rounds€ofÏsix€shot€for€a€twelve€gauge€shotgun€in€the€defendant's€apartmentÏand€determined€that€the€front€door€had€been€kicked€from€theÏinside€out.€€The€living€room€area€was€also€in€disarray,€but€itÏappeared€"contrived."€€While€Officer€Malone€collected€evidence,Ïhe€overheard€the€defendant€tell€other€officers€that€he€wasÏstanding€in€the€doorway€of€his€apartment€unit€when€he€fired€hisÏshotgun€at€the€victim.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Brad€Corcoran€worked€with€Officer€Malone€inÏcollecting€physical€evidence€at€the€scene.€€He€found€bloodstainsÏin€an€alleyway€near€the€apartment€building.€€ÌÌà àà àHomicide€Detective€Mike€Roland€took€a€statement€fromÏthe€defendant.€€The€defendant,€who€described€himself€as€nervousÏand€upset,€contended€that€after€he€had€been€attacked€by€theÏvictim,€he€got€his€gun€and€went€to€the€doorway€of€his€apartment.€ÏWhile€there,€he€fired€two€or€three€times€at€the€victim€who,€byÏthen,€had€fled€some€distance€away€but€was€coming€back€towardÏhim.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€when€he€saw€the€victim€fall,€heÏput€his€gun€away€and€went€to€his€sister's€house€to€callÏauthorities.€€The€defendant€maintained€that€he€had€no€idea€whyÏthe€victim€initiated€the€attack.€€He€asserted€that€he€generallyÏtried€to€stay€away€from€the€victim€because,€in€part,€the€victimÏdrank€heavily€and€became€violent€when€he€did€so.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àDetective€Roland€also€described€the€condition€of€the€Ïdefendant's€apartment€as€"contrived."€€He€explained€that€thereÏwas€no€damage€to€the€glass€portion€of€the€front€door€which€theÏdefendant€claimed€had€been€kicked€out.€€The€furniture€was€inÏdisarray€but€otherwise€undamaged.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Reed€Majors,€a€firearms€instructor€with€theÏMetropolitan€Nashville„Davidson€County€Police€Department,Ïconducted€tests€on€the€defendant's€weapon.€€He€testified€thatÏthe€weapon€was€a€Remington€shotgun,€which€held€three€rounds€ofÏammunition€and€which€always€ejected€to€the€right€when€fired.€ÏOfficer€Majors€showed€the€jury€the€pattern€that€was€left€on€theÏtarget€when€he€test„fired€the€weapon€at€both€an€open€and€closedÏchoke€position€from€several€distances.€Ì€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àDr.€Mona€Harlan,€a€forensic€pathologist€with€theÏDavidson€County€Medical€Examiner's€Office,€conducted€theÏautopsy.€€She€stated€that€the€victim€suffered€multiple€pelletÏwounds€which€extended€from€slightly€above€his€knees€to€the€topÏof€his€head.€€There€was€no€stippling€of€the€skin€near€the€wound.€ÏThat€led€Dr.€Harlan€to€conclude€that€the€victim€had€notÏsustained€the€gunshot€wound€from€close€range.€€She€estimatedÏthat€at€least€fifteen€feet€would€have€separated€the€victim€andÏthe€defendant€when€the€victim€was€shot.€€The€victim€hadÏabrasions€on€his€hand,€knee,€and€forehead,€which€Dr.€HarlanÏbelieved€could€have€been€the€product€of€a€physical€altercation,Ïthe€victim's€fall€to€the€ground,€or€from€pellets€which€had€notÍpenetrated€the€skin.€€Dr.€Harlan€also€found€that€the€victim'sÏblood€alcohol€level€was€.14.€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defense€offered€several€witnesses.€€TheÏdefendant's€sister,€Sandra€Ryman,€testified€that€the€defendantÏhad€come€to€her€home€and€asked€her€to€call€911€on€the€night€ofÏthe€shooting.€€She€then€woke€her€husband€and€asked€him€toÏaccompany€her€to€the€defendant's€apartment€to€investigate.€€AsÏthey€entered€the€alleyway€in€front€of€the€apartment,€Ms.€RymanÏsaw€the€victim€lying€on€the€ground€surrounded€by€emergencyÏpersonnel,€the€Smoots,€Fann,€and€the€defendant's€brother.€€Ms.ÏRyman€testified€that€the€victim€had€been€her€daughter's€ex„boyfriend€and€had€resided€at€her€home€a€short€time€after€hisÏarrest€for€trespassing€at€another€apartment€building€where€heÏonce€lived.€€She€stated€that€the€victim€often€bragged€aboutÏfighting,€drank€heavily,€and€was€very€"rowdy€and€redneck"€whenÏhe€was€drunk.€€Ms.€Ryman€also€testified€that€the€victim€hadÏpushed€and€shoved€her€and€did€not€get€along€well€with€herÏhusband;€she€said€her€daughter€had€moved€out€of€the€apartmentÏthree€days€before€the€shooting.€€Ms.€Ryman€went€to€the€victim'sÏapartment€on€the€day€following€the€shooting.€€She€claimed€thatÏshe€found€an€Odyssey€Club€coin€and€a€lighter€in€the€yardÍdirectly€in€front€of€the€defendant's€apartment.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àPaul€Ryman,€the€defendant's€brother„in„law,Ïcorroborated€much€of€his€wife's€testimony.€€He€claimed€that€theÏvictim€had€shoved€his€wife€and€had€been€required€to€move€out€ofÏtheir€home.€€€ÌÌà àà àBernard€Tefteller,€another€brother„in„law€to€theÏdefendant,€claimed€to€have€seen€the€victim€at€a€liquor€store€atÏapproximately€10:00€p.m.€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€HeÏstated€that€the€victim€was€wobbly,€had€glassy€eyes,€and€appearedÏto€be€drunk.€€Tefteller€testified€that€the€victim€had€beenÏrefused€service€and€got€angry€when€Tefteller€would€not€purchaseÏa€bottle€of€liquor€for€him.€€When€Tefteller€told€the€victim€notÏto€be€"putting€his€hands"€on€him,€the€victim€replied,€"[T]heÏhell€with€you€and€Jimmy€[the€defendant],€too."€Tefteller€claimedÏthat€he€saw€a€small€pistol€in€the€victim's€€back€pocket.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àBradley€Burton,€whose€apartment€was€located€betweenÏthose€of€the€defendant€and€the€victim,€stated€that€he€was€atÏhome€watching€television€with€his€girlfriend€on€the€night€of€theÏmurder.€€He€related€that€the€victim,€who€had€been€yelling€andÏscreaming,€banged€on€their€door€about€10:00€p.m.;€when€BurtonÍanswered,€the€victim,€who€appeared€drunk,€wanted€to€fight.€ÏBurton€testified€that€the€victim€leaned€back€"like€he€was€fixingÏto€hit€[him]€or€pull€a€weapon"€and€so€he€pushed€the€victim€awayÏand€shut€the€door.€€When€the€victim€started€beating€and€kickingÏhis€door€again,€Burton€refused€to€answer.€€Burton€said€thatÏshortly€thereafter€he€heard€two€loud€noises€that€sounded€likeÏgunshots€from€a€small€caliber€weapon€and€then€heard€the€victimÏbeat€on€the€defendant's€door.€€He€stated€that€there€wereÏthumping€sounds€from€next€door,€some€screaming€and€yelling,€andÏthen€two€more€shots€fired€from€what€sounded€like€a€large€caliberÏgun.€€Burton€claimed€that€about€forty„five€minutes€later,€heÏtold€an€investigating€officer€that€the€victim€had€been€"goingÏoff"€and€provided€him€with€the€details€of€his€encounter.€ÏBurton,€who€had€several€state€warrants€pending€against€him€atÏthe€time€of€the€shooting,€admitted€that€the€defendant€had€askedÏhim€to€tell€defense€counsel€what€he€saw€and€heard€on€the€nightÏof€the€murder.ÌÌà àà àBrenda€Arnold,€who€was€living€with€Burton,€stated€thatÏshe€also€heard€the€victim€screaming€and€yelling€profanity€on€theÏnight€of€the€murder.€€Although€she€stayed€in€the€back€bedroom,ÏMs.€Arnold€overheard€a€heated€exchange€between€the€victim€andÍBurton€and€claimed€that€Burton€told€the€victim€to€go€home€andÏ"sober€up."€€According€to€Ms.€Arnold,€there€was€a€great€deal€ofÏnoise€coming€from€the€defendant's€apartment€a€few€minutes€later,Ïwhich€sounded€like€two€people€"wrestling€around."€€She€claimedÏthat€she€heard€the€defendant€order€the€victim€to€get€out€of€hisÏapartment.€€Ms.€Arnold€stated€that€she€thought€she€had€heardÏgunfire€that€night.€€She€acknowledged,€however,€that€she€had€notÏgiven€this€information€to€police€on€the€night€of€the€shooting.€€ÌÌà àà àDebra€Ryman,€who€lived€with€the€victim€for€threeÏyears,€testified€that€he€and€the€defendant€got€along€well.€€SheÏsaid€that€the€defendant€would€often€visit€their€apartment€to€eatÏdinner€and€watch€television.€€She€testified€that€the€victimÏdrank€alcohol€on€the€weekends,€occasionally€to€excess.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€a€sheet€metal€worker,€testified€that€heÏhad€lived€in€his€apartment€at€128€Rains€Road€for€approximatelyÏsix€months€when€the€shooting€occurred.€€He€stated€the€victimÏlived€in€a€nearby€apartment€with€his€niece€and€that€they€wouldÏoccasionally€invite€him€to€eat€dinner€there.€€The€defendantÏclaimed€that€he€and€the€victim€had€never€had€problems€until€theÏday€of€the€shooting.€€ÌÌà àà àHe€testified€that€the€victim€had€several€guests€at€hisÏapartment€drinking€that€day.€€One€of€the€guests€had€made€aÏ"smart"€remark€to€the€defendant,€but€the€defendant€claimed€thatÏhe€had€ignored€the€comment.€€When€he€returned€to€his€apartment,Ïhe€turned€on€the€television€and€fell€asleep€on€the€couch.€€TheÏdefendant€claimed€that€the€next€thing€he€remembered€was€a€loudÏbanging€at€his€door.€€When€he€answered,€the€victim,€who€smelledÏstrongly€of€alcohol,€struck€him€in€the€side€of€the€face.€€TheÏdefendant€contended€that€the€victim,€who€had€previously€braggedÏabout€his€fighting€prowess,€hit€him€about€fifteen€times.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€retrieved€his€shotgun€from€underneath€his€bedÏonly€after€he€was€hit€in€the€back€of€the€head;€when€he€did€so,Ïthe€victim€stood€in€the€bedroom€doorway€and€cursed€at€him.€€HeÏmaintained€that€the€victim€was€only€about€fifteen€or€twenty€feetÏoutside€the€apartment€by€the€time€the€shotgun€had€been€loaded.€ÏThe€defendant€claimed€that€the€shotgun€started€"going€off"€onlyÏafter€the€victim€reached€for€something€in€his€back€pocket.€€HeÏstated€that€he€had€not€aimed€his€weapon€before€firing.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€denied€having€been€in€the€victim'sÏapartment€on€the€day€of€the€murder.€€He€claimed€that€his€onlyÍprior€"trouble"€had€been€a€conviction€for€aggravated€assaultÏwith€intent€to€commit€robbery.€€On€cross€examination,€however,Ïthe€defendant€admitted€that€he€had€a€prior€misdemeanor,€butÏcould€not€remember€the€nature€of€the€offense;€he€also€concededÏthat€he€had€prior€charges€for€malicious€destruction€of€property,Ïassault€with€an€automobile,€and€simple€assault.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€attempted€to€discredit€the€accuracy€ofÏthe€results€of€ballistics€tests€conducted€by€Officer€MajorsÏthrough€the€expert€testimony€of€Herschel€Watson,€Jr.,€anÏexaminer€in€the€Nashville„Davidson€County€Medical€Examiner'sÏOffice.€€Watson€explained€that€the€propellant€used€in€shotgunÏshells€determined€the€distance€that€the€shell€would€travel€whenÏfired.€€He€acknowledged€that€tests€performed€using€a€shell€withÏa€propellant€different€from€that€in€the€shell€which€killed€theÏvictim,€would€produce€less€than€entirely€accurate€results.€€HeÏtestified€that€manufacturers€frequently€changed€the€propellant,Ïbut€could€not€say€whether€the€Remington€Company,€whoÏmanufactured€the€shotgun€shell€which€killed€the€victim,€had€madeÏany€changes€in€their€product€between€the€victim's€death€and€theÏpoint€at€which€the€state€conducted€tests€on€the€murder€weapon.€€ÌÌà àà àMichael€Smoot€testified€in€rebuttal€for€the€state.€€HeÏstated€that€he€saw€Tefteller€at€the€liquor€store€on€the€night€ofÏthe€shooting€and€helped€him€select€a€bottle€of€wine.€€He€saidÏTefteller€made€no€mention€of€any€altercation€with€the€victim.€ÏSmoot€reaffirmed€that€the€victim€did€not€have€a€weapon,€notingÏthat€the€victim€had€passed€through€a€metal€detector€at€theÏOdyssey€Club€without€incident.€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Smoot€also€testified€on€rebuttal.€€She€stated€thatÏTefteller€was€at€the€liquor€store€on€the€evening€in€question,Ïbut€had€no€physical€contact€with€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àDetective€Lawrence€also€provided€additional€testimony.€ÏHe€testified€that€Burton€had€been€interviewed€on€the€night€ofÏthe€murder,€but€said€nothing€about€any€disturbance€at€either€theÏapartment€of€the€victim€or€that€of€the€defendant.€€The€detectiveÏdid€acknowledge€that€Burton€stated€that€he€had€seen€the€victimÏin€an€intoxicated€state€and€had€heard€yelling€in€the€defendant'sÏapartment.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà@ àò òòòIó óóóÌà àà àInitially,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€wasÏinsufficient€to€support€his€conviction€for€first€degree€murderÍand€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€his€motion€for€aÏjudgment€of€acquittal€on€that€charge.€€The€state€argues€thatÏthere€was€ample€evidence€to€allow€a€jury€to€find€the€defendantÏguilty€of€the€offense.€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€may€only€enter€a€judgment€of€acquittalÏwhen€the€evidence€submitted€by€the€state,€taken€in€its€mostÏfavorable€light,€does€not€establish€the€elements€of€the€offense.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€656€S.W.2d€60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€ÏClearly,€the€state€met€its€burden€of€proof€in€that€regard.€€OurÏanalysis€of€the€next€issue€buttresses€that€conclusion.€€Thus€theÏtrial€judge€had€no€duty€to€enter€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€verdict€based€uponÏthe€allegation€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient,€the€state€isÏentitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€andÏall€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòStateÏv.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibilityÏof€the€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€andÏthe€reconciliation€of€conflicts€in€the€proof€are€mattersÏentrusted€exclusively€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€TheÍrelevant€question€on€appeal€is€whether€any€rational€trier€ofÏfact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410Ï(Tenn.€1983),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€465€U.S.€1073€(1984);€Tenn.€R.€App.ÏP.€13(e).ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€applicable€statutory€law.€€At€theÏtime€of€the€offense,€first€degree€murder€was€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà0 àò òFirst€degree€murder.„„ó ó(a)€First€degree€murderÏis:€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(1)€An€òòintentionalóó,€òòpremeditatedóó€andÏòòdeliberateóó€killing€of€another;€or€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(2)€A€òòreckless€killingóó€of€anotherÏcommitted€in€the€perpetration€of,€orÏattempt€to€perpetrate€any€first€degreeÏmurder,€arson,€rape,€robbery,€burglary,Ïtheft,€kidnapping€or€aircraft€piracy;€or€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(3)€A€òòreckless€killingóó€of€anotherÏcommitted€as€the€result€of€the€unlawfulÏthrowing,€placing€or€discharging€of€aÏdestructive€device€or€bomb.€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(4)€A€killing€of€a€child€less€thanÏthirteen€(13)€years€of€age,€if€the€child'sÏdeath€results€from€a€protracted€pattern€orÏmultiple€incidents€of€bodily€injuryÏcommitted€by€the€defendant€against€suchÏchild€and€the€death€is€caused€either€by€theÏlast€injury€or€the€cumulative€effect€ofÏsuch€injuries.€€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(b)€A€person€convicted€of€first€degreeÏmurder€shall€be€punished€by€death€or€byÏimprisonment€for€life.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„202€(emphasis€added).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÍ39„13„201€provides€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òCriminal€homicide.„„ó ó(a)€CriminalÏhomicide€is€the€unlawful€killing€of€anotherÏperson€which€may€be€first€degree€murder,Ïsecond€degree€murder,€voluntaryÏmanslaughter,€criminally€negligent€homicideÏor€vehicular€homicide.€€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(b)€The€following€definitions€apply€inÏthis€part:€€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(1)€"Deliberate€act"€means€one€performedÏwith€a€cool€purpose;€and€Ìà8 àà8 à€€€(2)€"Premeditated€act"€means€one€doneÏafter€the€exercise€of€reflection€andÏjudgment.€€Premeditation€may€includeÏinstances€of€homicide€committed€by€poisonÏor€by€lying€in€wait.ÌÌÓÓIn€consequence,€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€forÏpurposes€of€this€appeal,€depends€entirely€upon€whether€the€stateÏwas€able€to€prove€each€and€every€one€of€the€essential€elements:Ïintent,€premeditation,€and€deliberation.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€begin€our€analysis€with€a€review€of€each€of€theÏthree€elements€required€by€the€law€to€support€a€first€degreeÏmurder€conviction.€€An€"intentional"€act€is€statutorily€defined:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à"Intentional"€refers€to€a€person€who€actsÏintentionally€with€respect€to€the€nature€ofÏthe€conduct€or€to€a€result€of€the€conductÏwhen€it€is€the€person's€conscious€objectiveÏor€desire€to€engage€in€the€conduct€or€causeÏthe€result.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„302(a).€€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÍdescribe€conduct€as€intentional€"when€the€defendant€wants€to€doÏthe€act€or€achieve€the€criminal€objective."€€So,€from€all€ofÏthis,€it€would€appear€that€the€burden€of€the€state€at€trial€(toÏshow€first€degree€murder)€was€to€prove€that€the€defendant€hadÏconsciously€engaged€in€conduct€which€resulted€in€the€death€ofÏthe€victim€(intentionally)€and€that€he€perpetrated€the€killingÏwith€a€cool,€calculated€purpose€(deliberately)€and€afterÏreflective€judgment€(premeditatedly).€€Ìà àà àAt€common€law,€a€homicide,€a€death€caused€by€theÏintentional€act€of€another,€was€presumed€to€be€second€degreeÏmurder.€€òòWitt€v.€Stateóó,€46€Tenn.€5,€8€(1868).€€Under€currentÏstatutory€law,€the€state€must€still€prove€both€premeditation€andÏdeliberation€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€in€order€to€raise€theÏoffense€to€first€degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530,Ï543€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBrownóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€element€ofÏdeliberation€contemplates€a€lapse€of€time€between€the€decisionÏto€kill€and€the€killing.€€"[T]he€deliberation€and€premeditationÏmust€be€akin€to€the€deliberation€and€premeditation€manifestedÏwhere€the€murder€is€by€poison€or€lying€in€wait€„„€the€coolÏpurpose€must€be€formed€and€the€deliberate€intention€conceived€inÍthe€mind,€in€the€absence€of€passion,€to€take€the€life€of€theÏperson€slain."€€òòIdóó.€at€539€(quoting€òòRader€v.€Stateóó,€73€Tenn.Ï610,€619„20€(1880)).€€In€order€to€convict€a€defendant€for€firstÏdegree€murder,€a€jury€must€find€that€the€defendant€killed€withÏcoolness€and€after€reflective€thought.€€òòState€v.€Westóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€144,€147€(Tenn.€1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Brooksóó,€880ÏS.W.2d€390,€392„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÌÌà àà àNo€specific€time€is€required€to€form€the€requisiteÏdeliberation.€€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€1,€3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€Deliberation€is€present€when€the€circumstancesÏsuggest€that€the€murderer€contemplated€the€manner€andÏconsequences€of€his€act.€€òòWestóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€147.€€ThoughÏsimilar,€deliberation€and€premeditation€are€defined€separatelyÏand€are€distinct€elements.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„l3„201(b);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrooksóó,€880€S.W.2d€at€392„93.€€They€may€be€inferredÏfrom€the€circumstances€where€those€circumstances€affirmativelyÏestablish€that€the€defendant€premeditated€his€assault€and€thenÏdeliberately€performed€the€act.€€òòState€v.€Richard€Nelsonóó,€No.Ï02C01„9211„CR„00251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Oct.€14,Ï1993).€€This€court€has€previously€held€that€the€holding€in€òòBrownóóÏrequires€"proof€that€the€offense€was€committed€upon€reflection,Í'without€passion€or€provocation,'€and€otherwise€free€from€theÏinfluence€of€excitement"€before€a€second€degree,€intentionalÏmurder€can€be€elevated€to€murder€in€the€first€degree.€€òòState€v.ÏDavid€L.€Hassellóó,€No.€02C01„9202„CR„00038,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.€30,€1992).ÌÌà àà àOne€respected€authority€provides€some€insight€into€theÏnature€of€proof€required€before€a€jury€might€properly€inferÏeither€premeditation€or€deliberation:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€facts€about€how€and€what€the€defendantÏdid€prior€to€the€actual€killing€which€showÏhe€was€engaged€in€activity€directed€towardÏthe€killing,€that€is,€òòplanning€activityóó;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€facts€about€the€defendant's€priorÏrelationship€and€conduct€with€the€victimÏfrom€which€òòmotiveóó€may€be€inferred;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€facts€about€the€òònature€of€the€killingóóÏfrom€which€it€may€be€inferred€that€theÏmanner€of€the€killing€was€so€particular€andÏexacting€that€the€defendant€must€haveÏintentionally€killed€according€to€aÏpreconceived€design.ÌÌÓÓ2€W.€LaFave€and€A.€Scott,€Jr.,€òòSubstantive€Criminal€Lawóó€ðð€7.7Ï(1986)(emphasis€in€original)(footnote€omitted).€€Our€court€hasÏheld€that€the€elements€of€deliberation€and€premeditation€areÏquestions€for€the€jury€and€may€be€inferred€from€the€manner€andÏcircumstances€of€the€killing.€€òòGentryóó,€881€S.W.2d€at€3.€€Still,Ía€jury€may€not€engage€in€speculation.€€ÌÌà àà àViewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€theÏevidence€here€showed€that€the€victim€went€to€the€defendant'sÏapartment;€a€verbal€altercation€ensued;€and€the€defendantÏretrieved€his€shotgun.€€After€taking€the€time€to€load€theÏweapon,€the€defendant€began€a€search€for€his€fleeing€victim.€€AtÏsome€point,€the€defendant€fired€two€shots€into€the€victim'sÏapartment,€one€through€the€door€before€entering€and€another€fromÏthe€inside.€€The€victim€was€a€considerable€distance€away€whenÏthe€defendant€fired€the€fatal€shot.€€In€the€meantime,€the€victimÏhad€sought€protection€from€his€friends.€€The€evidence€suggestedÏthat€the€defendant€then€made€it€appear€that€the€victim€hadÏinitiated€a€physical€altercation€and€that€the€killing€was€inÏself€defense.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThere€was€some€evidence€of€planning.€€Officers€foundÏthree€unused€"slugs"€lying€on€the€floor€of€the€defendant'sÏbedroom.€€There€was€testimony€that€the€"slugs"€require€precisionÏshooting€and€the€circumstances€suggested€that€the€defendant€hadÏunloaded€the€"slugs."€€The€defendant's€shotgun€would€holdÏexactly€three€shells.€€The€shells€used€to€kill€the€victim€wereÍsix€shot,€a€type€which€requires€much€less€precision€in€order€toÏhit€the€intended€target.€€A€reasonable€inference€is€that€theÏdefendant€coolly€and€purposefully€took€the€time€to€load€hisÏweapon€with€that€type€of€ammunition€which€would€allow€him€theÏbest€chance€at€striking€the€victim.€€As€the€finder€of€fact,€theÏjury€was€entitled€to€reject€the€defendant's€claim€that€he€hadÏnot€unloaded€his€weapon,€but€had€simply€knocked€the€"slugs"€intoÏthe€floor€as€he€reached€for€his€six€shot.€€In€either€scenario,Ïthe€defendant€required€some€time€to€retrieve€ammunition€from€hisÏcloset€and€load€his€weapon.€€By€the€time€the€defendant€hadÏloaded€his€weapon,€the€victim€had€fled.€€That€the€defendantÏpursued€the€victim€for€at€least€some€distance€was€not€at€issue.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€insists€there€was€no€motive€for€theÏkilling€and€that€he€had€never€before€had€any€type€ofÏdisagreement€with€the€victim.€€Ms.€Smoot,€however,€testifiedÏthat€the€victim€had€told€her€that€he€and€the€defendant€hadÏpreviously€"had€words"€and€that€he€did€not€think€the€defendantÏliked€him.€€Further,€the€defendant's€niece,€Debra€Ryman,€hadÏmoved€out€of€the€apartment€she€shared€with€the€victim€only€threeÏdays€before€the€shooting.€€The€testimony€of€the€defendant'sÏsister€and€two€of€his€brothers„in„law€also€suggested€that€hisÍfamily€disliked€the€victim.€€The€defendant€and€the€victim€hadÏapparently€engaged€in€some€sort€of€altercation€just€prior€to€theÏshooting.€€While€motive€is€not€a€necessary€element€of€firstÏdegree€murder,€it€may,€if€proved,€reflect€upon€the€elements€ofÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Gentryóó,€881€S.W.2dÏ1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€nature€of€the€killing€isÏsuch€that€the€jury€could€not€have€found€that€he€had€time€to€actÏdeliberately€or€with€premeditation.€€He€bases€this€claim€inÏlarge€part€upon€the€testimony€of€Brad€Burton€and€Brenda€Arnold,Ïwhose€apartment€was€situated€between€those€of€the€victim€and€theÏdefendant.€€The€testimony€of€both€supported€the€defendant'sÏclaim€that€the€victim€was€drunk€and€"looking€for€a€fight."€ÏBurton€testified€that€after€his€confrontation€with€the€victim,Ïthe€victim€returned€to€his€apartment,€from€where€Burton€heardÏshouts€and€possibly€two€shots.€€Burton€and€Ms.€Arnold€claimed€toÏhave€later€heard€a€commotion€from€the€defendant's€apartment,Ïfollowed€by€gunshots€from€what€Burton€believed€to€be€a€largerÏcaliber€weapon.€€Yet€Ms.€Arnold€did€not€offer€to€make€aÏstatement€to€the€police€when€they€came€to€investigate.€€BurtonÏmade€no€mention€of€many€of€the€critical€facts€he€supplied€laterÍat€the€trial.€€Police€were€unable€to€find€any€small€caliberÏweapon,€which€Burton€claimed€to€have€heard€fired,€in€either€theÏdefendant's€or€the€victim's€apartment.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€even€if€he€was€notÏjustified€in€shooting€the€victim,€there€was€insufficient€timeÏbetween€the€altercation€and€the€time€of€the€shooting€for€him€toÏhave€regained€a€reflective,€dispassionate€mental€state.€€WeÏdisagree.€€Some€evidence€indicated€that€the€defendant,€afterÏloading€his€shotgun,€went€to€the€victim's€apartment,€fired€oneÏgunshot€through€his€door,€and€then€entered€to€fire€a€secondÏshot.€€When€he€did€not€find€the€victim,€he€walked€back€outside,Ïsaw€the€victim€some€distance€away,€aimed,€and€fired€the€fatalÏshot.€€From€all€of€that,€the€jury€was€entitled€to€infer€that€theÏshooting€was€intentional,€deliberate,€and€premeditated.€ÏMoreover,€there€was€evidence€that€the€defendant€took€great€painsÏto€make€it€appear€that€the€victim€had€broken€into€his€apartmentÏand€that€a€physical€altercation€had€taken€place.€€€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€there€was€proof€of€each€and€every€elementÏrequired€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder,€theÏtrial€judge€properly€refused€to€enter€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€ÍThe€evidence€was€sufficient,€in€our€view,€to€support€the€jury'sÏverdict.€€€€€€€à àà àÌÌà@ àò òòòIIóóó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€Officer€Majors'Ïtestimony€concerning€shotgun€blast€test€results€was€irrelevantÏand€should€have€been€stricken.€€The€tests€were€conducted€to€showÏthe€spread€pattern€which€occurs€at€the€fully€open€and€the€fullyÏclosed€setting€of€the€choke€on€the€defendant's€shotgun€fromÏvarying€distances.€€Because€there€was€no€evidence€to€show€whichÏposition€the€choke€was€in€at€the€time€he€shot€the€victim,€theÏdefendant€claims€the€testimony€had€no€probative€value.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€distance€between€the€victim€and€the€defendant€atÏthe€time€of€the€shooting€was€a€hotly€contested€issue€at€trial.€ÏThe€defendant€claimed€that€he€did€not€intend€to€kill€the€victimÏand€only€shot€him€in€self€defense.€€Under€these€circumstances,Ïthe€expert€testimony,€although€inconclusive,€was€highlyÏrelevant.€€The€further€the€victim€was€away,€the€less€threat€heÏpresented€to€the€defendant.ÌÌà àà àOfficer€Majors€offered€no€opinion€as€to€which€settingÍthe€choke€was€on€or€how€far€the€victim€was€from€the€defendantÏwhen€he€was€shot.€€He€merely€explained€the€tests€he€hadÏconducted€and€showed€the€jury€the€spread€pattern€which€resultedÏfrom€a€shot€fired€from€a€particular€distance€at€a€given€chokeÏsetting.€€Thus,€the€jury€was€able€to€use€this€informationÏinsofar€as€it€aided€in€the€explanation€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏHarlan.€€More€specifically,€it€could€compare€the€spread€patternÏon€the€body€with€those€provided€by€Officer€Majors€to€helpÏestimate€how€close€the€defendant€may€have€been€when€the€shot€wasÏfired.ÌÌà@ àò òòòIII€and€IVóóó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€photographs€of€theÏvictim€taken€at€the€morgue€were€overly€prejudicial.€€He€alsoÏcontends€that€photographs€of€the€victim's€apartment€wereÏinadmissible€because€the€state€did€not€prove€that€the€defendantÏwas€ever€in€the€apartment.ÌÌà àà àThe€admissibility€of€photographs€from€the€scene€of€theÏcrime€is€governed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€403€and€òòState€v.ÏBanksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€evidence€must€beÏrelevant€and€its€probative€value€must€outweigh€any€prejudicialÍeffect.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403;€òòState€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€at€950„951.€€Whether€to€admit€the€photographs€is€within€theÏdiscretionary€authority€of€the€trial€court€and€will€not€beÏreversed€absent€a€clear€showing€of€an€abuse.€€òòState€v.€Allenóó,Ï692€S.W.2d€651,€654€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€ÌÌà àà àWe€first€address€the€admissibility€of€the€morgueÏphotographs,€which€depict€the€nature€of€the€injuries€the€victimÏsuffered€as€a€result€of€the€gunshot€wound.€€While€unpleasant,Ïthe€photographs€of€the€victim€were€not€overly€graphic.€€BecauseÏthe€distance€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€related€toÏcritical€elements€of€the€offense,€the€probative€value€of€theÏphotographs€clearly€outweighed€any€unfair€prejudice.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€photographs€of€theÏvictim's€apartment€were€irrelevant.€€While€there€was€no€directÏproof€that€the€defendant€had€been€inside€the€victim's€apartment,Ïthere€was€circumstantial€evidence€which€suggested€that€fact.€ÏThere€was€a€heavy€odor€of€gunpowder€in€the€apartment€when€policeÏofficers€arrived€at€the€scene.€€Two€shots€appeared€in€the€walls.€ÏThere€was€no€gun€there.€€No€weapon€was€found€near€the€victim'sÏbody.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€heÍused€a€shotgun€to€kill€the€victim.€€A€reasonable€inference€isÏthat€the€same€weapon€was€used€to€"shoot€up"€the€victim'sÏapartment.€€ÌÌà àà àEvidence€is€relevant€if€it€has€any€tendency€to€makeÏthe€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€more€probableÏor€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence."€€Tenn.ÏR.€Evid.€401.€€In€our€view,€whether€the€defendant€entered€theÏvictim's€apartment€and€fired€shots€was€relevant€to€one€or€moreÏof€the€elements€of€the€offense.€€Photographs€showing€theÏlocation€and€type€of€damage€done€to€the€victim's€apartment€wereÏadmissible€to€assist€the€jury€in€resolving€the€disputed€facts.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòVó óóóÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€allowing€the€victim's€father€to€sit€with€theÏprosecution€because€his€presence€served€only€to€elicit€sympathyÏfrom€the€jury.€€The€state€argues€that€there€is€no€evidence€inÏthe€record€that€the€jury€knew€he€was€the€victim's€father€and,Ïthus,€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€record€does,€in€fact,€establish€that€theÍjury€was€aware€that€the€victim's€father€sat€with€theÏprosecution,€we€nevertheless€find€that€there€has€been€no€showingÏof€prejudice.€€The€question€of€whether€a€person€"should€beÏpermitted€to€sit€at€the€state's€counsel€table€is€a€matter€whichÏaddresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court."€ÏòòState€v.€Henry€Eugene€Hodgesóó,€No.€01C01„9212„CR„00382€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€May€18,€1995)(holding€that€theÏdefendant€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€trial€court's€ruling€thatÏthe€victim's€mother€could€sit€at€counsel€table,€although€theÏjury€was€aware€of€her€identity).€€In€this€instance,€defenseÏcounsel€did€not€lodge€an€objection€until€the€trial€was€wellÏunderway.€€No€issue€was€made,€until€defense€counsel€asked€PaulÏRyman€to€identify€the€victim's€father.€€In€these€circumstances,Ïthere€is€always€the€risk€that€the€issue€has€been€waived.€ÏMoreover,€a€defendant€cannot€invite€error€and€then€complain€ofÏits€commission.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€Proc.€36(a).€€While€it€is€theÏduty€of€the€trial€judge€to€avoid€the€possibility€of€sympathy€asÏa€factor€in€the€outcome€of€a€trial,€it€has€not€been€establishedÏthat€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€this€instance.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòVIó óóóÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€trial€court€erredÍby€allowing€evidence€of€the€defendant's€prior€bad€acts€despiteÏthe€state's€failure€to€provide€notice€in€accordance€with€Rule€16Ïof€the€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€Proc.€€The€record€fails,€however,€toÏsupport€this€assertion.€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€defendant€did€object€to€the€prosecutor'sÏcross„examination€of€the€defendant€concerning€certain€priorÏmisdemeanor€offenses,€he€did€not€assert€lack€of€notice€as€theÏbasis€for€the€objection.€€On€appeal,€a€defendant€may€not€assertÏa€different€theory€for€the€exclusion€of€evidence€than€the€oneÏrelied€upon€at€trial.€€Thus,€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€òòSeeóóÏòòStephen€C.€Parker€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9008„CR„00188€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Nashville,€Feb.€26,€1991),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1991).€€Moreover,€even€if€there€was€error,€it€appears€toÏhave€been€invited€by€the€defendant.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);ÏòòState€v.€Garlandóó,€617€S.W.2d€176,€186€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€defendant€threw€"the€door€wideÏopen"€in€direct€examination€when€he€falsely€claimed€that€thisÏwas€only€"the€second€time"€he€had€ever€been€in€trouble.€€TheÏstate€has€the€right€to€challenge€untruthful€assertions€by€theÏdefendant€which€place€him€in€a€more€favorable€light€thanÏdeserved.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€670€S.W.2d€634€(Tenn.€Crim€App.Í1984).€€While€lack€of€notice€might€prohibit€the€use€of€theseÏconvictions€as€general€impeachment,€it€would€not€prohibit€theirÏuse€to€rebut€false€testimony€given€by€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà@ àò òòòVIIó óóóÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€prosecutor€wasÏguilty€of€misconduct€during€closing€argument€by€referring€to€theÏdefendant€as€a€"lunatic,"€by€characterizing€his€testimony€asÏ"ludicrous,"€and€by€describing€the€killing€as€a€"slaughter."€ÏThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€language€used€was€meant€only€toÏinflame€the€jury€and€that€the€proof€did€not€support€theseÏcharacterizations.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€courts€have€traditionally€provided€counsel€with€aÏwide€latitude€of€discretion€in€the€content€of€their€finalÏargument.€€Argument€is€a€privilege€that€should€not€be€undulyÏrestricted.€€Trial€judges€are€accorded€wide€discretion€inÏcontrol€of€the€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòRussell€v.€Stateóó,€532€S.W.2d€268Ï(Tenn.€1976).€€However,€every€person€charged€with€a€crime€hasÏthe€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury,€one€protected€fromÏinflammatory€argument.€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€338,€385ÏS.W.2d€758€(1965).€€It€is€preferable€for€counsel€in€criminalÍcases€to€limit€their€commentary€to€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏof€each€case€rather€than€rendering€personal€opinions.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€is€whether€"the€improper€conduct€could€have€affectedÏthe€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.ÏStateóó,€385€S.W.2d€at€759.€€The€factors€are€set€out€in€òòJudge€v.ÏStateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€as€adoptedÏby€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,Ï609€(Tenn.€1984):€€(1)€the€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€inÏlight€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case,€(2)€theÏcurative€measures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecutor,Ï(3)€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€the€improperÏstatement,€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€improper€conduct€andÏany€other€errors€in€the€record,€and€(5)€the€relative€strength€orÏweakness€of€the€case.ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€defendant€did€not€object€to€the€argumentÏmade€by€counsel.€€The€failure€to€object€results€in€the€waiver€ofÏan€issue€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Even€if€he€had€notÏwaived€the€issue,€we€believe€that€counsel's€argument,€even€ifÏinappropriate,€did€not€affect€the€results€of€the€trial.Ìò òòòÌà@ àVIII€and€IXÌà àà àó óóóThe€defendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€failing€to€charge€the€jury€on€the€defense€of€protection€ofÏproperty€and€the€lesser€included€offense€of€criminally€negligentÏhomicide.€€The€state€argues€that,€based€upon€the€proof€presentedÏat€trial€neither€instruction€was€warranted.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€judge€has€the€duty€to€give€a€complete€chargeÏof€the€law€applicable€to€the€facts€of€the€case.€€òòState€v.ÏHarbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€319€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€476€U.S.Ï1153€(1986).€€This€would€include€a€charge€on€the€defense€ofÏprotection€of€property,€if€the€facts€would€support€it.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€this€instruction€wasÏwarranted€because€the€proof€showed€that€the€victim€had€aÏreputation€for€violence€and€assaulted€him,€leaving€him€to€fearÏfor€his€life.€€He€claims€that€it€is€only€out€of€this€fear€thatÏhe€attacked€the€victim.€€Even€if€these€facts€are€taken€as€true,Ïthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€self€defense;€that€wasÏadequate.€ÌÌà àà àT.P.I.„„Crim.€40.08,€in€pertinent€part,€provides€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€person€in€lawful€possession€of€real€orÏpersonal€property€is€justified€inÏthreatening€or€using€force€against€anotherÏwhen€and€to€the€degree€it€is€reasonablyÏbelieved€the€force€is€immediately€necessaryÏto€prevent€or€terminate€the€other'sÏtrespass€on€the€land€or€unlawfulÏinterference€with€the€property.ÌÌà8 àà8 àA€person€who€has€been€unlawfullyÏdispossessed€of€real€or€personal€propertyÏis€justified€in€threatening€or€using€forceÏagainst€the€other€when€and€to€the€degree€itÏis€reasonably€believed€the€force€isÏimmediately€necessary€to€re„enter€the€landÏor€recover€the€property€if€the€personÏthreatens€or€uses€the€force€immediately€orÏin€fresh€pursuit€after€the€dispossession;Ï...ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòA€person€is€not€justified€in€using€deadlyÏforce€to€prevent€or€terminate€the€other'sÏtrespass€on€real€estate€or€unlawfulÏinterference€with€personal€propertyóó.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added.)€€As€the€state€points€out,€this€instruction€mayÏhave€actually€been€more€helpful€to€the€prosecution.€€It€clearlyÏprovides€that€if€the€defendant€was€merely€protecting€hisÏproperty,€he€was€not€justified€in€using€deadly€force.€€If,€onÏthe€other€hand,€the€defendant€contention€is€that€he€was€actingÏto€protect€his€life€rather€than€his€property,€this€instructionÏhas€no€applicability.€€In€our€view,€the€instruction€was€notÍwarranted€by€the€evidence.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€the€propriety€of€an€instruction€onÏcriminally€negligent€homicide.€€The€trial€court€charged€allÏlesser€grades€of€the€offense€except€criminally€negligentÏhomicide.€€The€least€possible€offense€under€the€instructionÏgiven€was€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Voluntary€manslaughter€isÏclearly€a€lesser€included€offense€of€first€degree€murder.€€òòSeeóóÏòòWright€v.€Stateóó,€549€S.W.2d€682€(Tenn.€1977).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„211(a)€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àVoluntary€manslaughter€is€the€intentionalÏor€knowing€killing€of€another€in€a€state€ofÏpassion€produced€by€adequate€provocationÏsufficient€to€lead€aÇà8 àà8 àreasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrationalÏmanner.ÌÌÓÓCriminally€negligent€homicide,€which€under€the€1989€Act€Ìreplaced€involuntary€manslaughter€as€a€crime,€is€also€a€lesserÏincluded€offense,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.Ï1994),€and€is€defined€as€"[c]riminally€negligent€conduct€whichÏresults€in€death."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„212(a).€€The€degreeÏof€negligence€required€to€prove€the€offense€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àCriminal€negligence€refers€to€a€person€whoÏacts€with€criminal€negligence€with€respectÏto€the€circumstances€surrounding€thatÏperson's€conduct€or€the€result€of€thatÏconduct€when€the€person€ought€to€be€awareÏof€a€substantial€and€unjustifiable€riskÏthat€the€circumstances€exist€or€the€resultÏwill€occur.€€The€risk€must€be€of€such€aÏnature€and€degree€that€the€failure€toÏperceive€it€constitutes€a€gross€deviationÏfrom€the€standard€of€care€that€an€ordinaryÏperson€would€exercise€under€all€theÏcircumstances€as€viewed€from€the€accusedÏperson's€standpoint[.]ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(4).ÌÓÓòòÌà àà àóóThe€sum€of€the€testimony€upon€which€the€defendantÏrelies€as€warranting€the€instruction€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDEFENDANT:€€The€gun€come€straight€up€likeÏthis€right€here€and€started€going€off.€€IÏdon't€know€if€it€went€off€two€times.€€IÏdon't€know€if€it€went€off€three€times.€€TheÏgun€was€starting€to€just€discharge.€€IÏmean,€I€didn't€pull€the€gun€up€and€aim€it.€ÍWhen€I€was€coming€up€with€the€gun,€I€had€myÏfoot€against€the€bottom€edge€of€that€door,Ïwhere€it€was€tore€up.€€And€the€door€was€onÏthis€arm.€€And€the€gun€started€going€off.ÌÌà@ à***ÌÌà8 àà8 àDEFENDANT:€€I€don't€know€exactly€what€timeÏit€was€that€night.€€I€know€it€was€dark.€ÏAnd€I€know€it€was€late€in€the€morning€whenÏthis€happened.€€And€this€man,€he€is€the€oneÏthat€come€and€provoked€me.€€I€was€in€bedÏasleep.€€I€was€asleep.€€And€he€come€forÏsome€ungodly€reason.€€I€don't€know.€€IÏdon't€know€what€happened.€€I€couldn't€tellÏyou€what€happened.€€He€could€have€got€intoÏit€with€somebody€else€somewhere€else,€andÏcome€over€there.€€But€all€I€know€the€manÏprovoked€me,€brung€that€stuff€out€of€me,Ïsomething€that€I'm€very€sorry€of€whatÏhappened.€€And€I€didn't€really€want€to€doÏwhat€I€done.€€But€I€was€nervous,€and€fearedÏfor€my€life.€€And€I€was€scared.ÌÌà8 àà8 àAnd€I€know€what€had€happened,€that€this€manÏwas€probably€hurt.€€I€want€to€„„€I€wantedÏto€help€him.€€But€I€didn't€know€if€I€wouldÏhave€went€over€there€and€done€something€toÏhim,€they€might€have€said€„„€the€policeÏmight€have€said,€"Well,€he€was€trying€to€doÏsomething€else€to€him."€€You€don't€neverÏknow€what€they'd€say.€€I€don't€know€whatÏthey€can€say,€or€what€they€will€say,€but€IÏknow€what€I€tried€to€do.€€I€thought€I€wasÏdoing€right.ÌÌà8 àà8 àMR.€DUZANE:€€Did€you€intend€to€kill€him?ÌÌà8 àà8 àDEFENDANT:€€No.€€I€didn't.ÌÌà àà à€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àIt€is€settled€law€that€when€"there€are€any€facts€thatÍare€susceptible€of€inferring€guilt€on€any€lesser€includedÏoffense€or€offenses,€then€there€is€a€mandatory€duty€upon€theÏtrial€judge€to€charge€on€such€offense€or€offenses.€€Failure€toÏdo€so€denies€a€defendant€his€constitutional€right€of€trial€by€aÏjury."€€òòState€v.€Wrightóó,€618€S.W.2d€310,€315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1981)(citations€omitted);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„110.€€WhenÏthere€is€a€trial€on€a€single€charge€of€felony,€there€is€also€aÏtrial€on€all€lesser€included€offenses,€"as€the€facts€may€be."€ÏòòStrader€v.€Stateóó,€362€S.W.2d€224,€227€(Tenn.€1962).ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€first€degreeÏmurder.€€The€lesser€included€offenses€included€second€degreeÏmurder,€voluntary€manslaughter,€and€criminally€negligentÏhomicide.€€òòSeeóó€òòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€951€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1973);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€550.€€TheÏdefendant€argues€that€portions€of€his€testimony€suggested€thatÏthe€shooting€was€unintentional,€the€result€of€a€"gross€deviationÏfrom€the€standard€of€care€that€an€ordinary€person€wouldÏexercise..."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„106(4).€€Thus,€he€claimsÏan€entitlement€to€the€instruction€of€criminally€negligentÏhomicide.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€only€when€the€record€contains€no€evidence€whichÏmight€support€an€inference€of€guilt€of€a€lesser€included€offenseÏthat€the€trial€court€has€no€duty€to€instruct.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏKingóó,€718€S.W.2d€241,€245€(Tenn.€1986).€€Even€where€the€evidenceÏis€slight€that€the€defendant€lacked€the€intent€required€toÏwarrant€a€conviction€for€a€greater€offense,€trial€courts€mustÏinstruct€on€the€lesser€offense.€€ÌÌà àà àUpon€careful€examination€of€the€context€of€theÏdefendant's€testimony,€we€have€concluded€that€this€is€one€ofÏthose€rare€instances€in€which€the€omission€of€the€instructionÏwas€not€erroneous.€€As€we€view€his€testimony,€the€defendantÏclaimed€self„defense€or,€in€the€alternative,€"adequateÏprovocation"€and€lack€of€a€preconceived€notion€to€kill€theÏvictim.€€In€other€words,€according€to€his€testimony,€it€was€theÏkilling,€not€the€shooting,€of€the€victim€which€wasÏunintentional.€€If€a€shooting€was€intentional,€any€resultantÏdeath€would€not€qualify€as€mere,€criminally€negligent€homicide.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à€à@ àò òòòXóóó óÌà àà àAs€his€last€issue,€the€defendant€asserts€that€theÏtrial€court,€acting€as€the€thirteenth€juror,€should€have€grantedÍthe€defendant€a€new€trial€after€an€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€expressed€surprise€at€the€verdict€of€murder€in€the€firstÏdegree.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àà àThe€"thirteenth€juror"€rule€provides€in€part€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€trial€court€may€grant€a€new€trialÏfollowing€a€verdict€of€guilty€if€itÏdisagrees€with€the€jury€about€the€weight€ofÏthe€evidence...ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f).€€The€rule€provides€trial€courts€withÏthe€authority€to€set€aside€a€guilty€verdict€and€to€grant€a€newÏtrial€if,€in€the€view€of€the€judge,€the€jury€verdict€is€againstÏthe€greater€weight€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Enochsóó,€823ÏS.W.2d€539,€540€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€should€haveÏconsidered€the€prosecutor's€personal€view€concerning€theÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€in€exercising€his€role€as€theÏthirteenth€juror.€€That€is€not€relevant€to€the€determination.€ÏWhen€acting€as€thirteenth€juror,€a€trial€judge€must€ascertainÏwhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict.€ÏThat€conclusion€must€be€based€solely€upon€the€evidence€adducedÍat€trial.€€To€do€otherwise€would€undermine€the€plain€language€ofÏthe€rule.€€Here,€the€trial€court€expressed€satisfaction€with€theÏverdict.€€That,€when€coupled€with€proof€of€each€and€everyÏelement€of€the€offense,€is€sufficient.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Gary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWilliam€S.€Russell,€Special€Judge